[G.R. No. 149275.

September 27, 2004]

VICKY C. TY, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

Ty’s mother Chua Lao So Un was confined at the Manila Doctors Hospital from 30
October 1990 until 4 June 1992. Being the patients daughter, Ty signed the
Acknowledgment of Responsibility for Payment in the Contract of Admission dated 30
October 1990. As of 4 June 1992, the Statement of Accoun shows the total liability of the
t

mother in the amount of P657,182.40. Tys sister, Judy Chua, was also confined at the
hospital from 13 May 1991 until 2 May 1992, incurring hospital bills in the amount
of P418,410.55. The total hospital bills of the two patients amounted to P1,075,592.95.
[8]

On 5 June 1992, . The seven (7) checks, each covering the amount of P30,000.00,
were all deposited on their due dates. But they were all dishonored by the drawee bank
and returned unpaid to the hospital due to insufficiency of funds, with the Account Closed
advice.

During trial, Ty claimed that she issued the checks because of an uncontrollable fear of
a greater injury. She averred that she was forced to issue the checks to obtain release for
her mother whom the hospital inhumanely and harshly treated and would not discharge
unless the hospital bills are paid. Fearing the worst for her mother, and to comply with the
demands of the hospital, Ty was compelled to sign a promissory note, open an account
with Metrobank and issue the checks for her mother’s immediate discharge.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On 21 April 1997, the trial court rendered a Decision finding Ty guilty of seven (7)
counts of violation of B.P. 22 and sentencing her to a prison term.
Ty appealed to the CA. Ty reiterated her defense that she issued the checks under the
impulse of an uncontrollable fear of a greater injury or in avoidance of a greater evil or
injury. She also argued that the RTC erred in finding her guilty when evidence showed
there was absence of valuable consideration for the issuance of the checks and the payee
had knowledge of the insufficiency of funds in the account.
On 31 July 2001, the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court with
modification. It set aside the penalty of imprisonment and instead sentenced Ty to pay a
fine of sixty thousand pesos (P60,000.00) equivalent to double the amount of the check, in
each case.
In its assailed Decision, the Court of Appeals rejected Tys defenses of involuntariness
in the issuance of the checks and the hospitals knowledge of her checking accounts lack
of funds. It held that B.P. 22 makes the mere act of issuing a worthless check punishable
as a special offense, it being a malum prohibitum. What the law punishes is the issuance
of a bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and
conditions relating to its issuance.
[16]
 ISSUE
Whether the defense of uncontrollable fear is tenable to warrant her exemption from criminal
liability
RULE OF LAW
APPLICATION OF THE LAW
RULING